Just curious, I had the 70-200 F4 non-IS on my future list. I currently have the 75-300 IS. I'm using a T3i. To prevent blur, I understand that I need 1/320 of a second. That's relatively fast in certain lighting conditions. Looking back at some of my photos and thinking about it, I'm not sure I want to go without IS. So I thought it was an interesting comment that this 70-200 F4 non-IS is "better in every way" than the 55-250 IS. No doubt they're in different leagues, but in certain, maybe many, low light situations, wouldn't the IS out perform? Yes, the L is a sharper lens, but not if it blurs, right?

I just bought the 15-85 at the Canon refurb sale, so I'm out of the market for a little while, but I noticed the 70-200 F4 IS was under $900, so that looks more appealing the next time a refurb sale comes around.

Interestingly, I was actually wondering if I might be better off to sell the 75-300 IS for a used 55-250 in the short term, since I've never really liked the lens. Too soft, slow to focus and hunts frequently for focus. Probably better to just wait for the better lens, but just curious on opinions on my ramblings.

I'll probably end up with the 85 1.8 first, but the better telephoto is in my future plans.

I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.

Agreed. Sometimes I wonder why people even post questions on here. A lot of times they already know the answer and/or only want to hear the answer they want to hear, and if posters post a different answer, they argue and do whatever they want anyways. Amazing.

And yet I can't stop reading this thread. It's a mesmerizing train wreck in posting form (with little tidbits of good info thrown in).

Clearly, the most important criterion when choosing a lens hood...or any gear, for that matter. Can I interest you in the special Jackie Chan edition of the 550D? It's more expensive than the T2i, but it looks really cool!

I bought my 55-250 for $199 on Amazon with an Xsi and 18-55 several years ago. The round (NOT petal) lens hood fits both lenses and causes a round solid vignette on the wide end of the kit lens.

A bent paper clip fits into an electrical outlet, too...just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it's the right fit. The correct hood will not vignette. The 18-55 takes the EW-60c (the 'W' is for wide angle), the 55-250 takes the ET-60 (the 'T' is for...you guessed it...telephoto). I presume you used the ET-60 on your 18-55, and that's why you got vignetting. The EW-60c fits on the 55-250, also...and would be totally useless in terms of protection from flare.

Of course, you should believe the outfit trying to get you to buy their 3rd party hood, because the company that makes the lens clearly doesn't understand how to design a hood to match the lens they designed.

Sounds like you really want a petal hood. It'll look so much cooler and fancier than the one designed by Canon, making you look like a cooler, fancier photographer. How you look is more important than the pictures you take, anyway. So please, just get the petal hood. Be sure to do a lot of focusing from close subjects to far ones, while people watch. You will want to call lots of attention to that petal hood as it rotates with the front element. Heck, maybe it won't even vignette when it does that. Also, I really like the convenience of the screw-on one the guy in the first video bought, too. You should get that exact one, because not only will you look like a better photographer, it'll be a lot easier than the pesky, reversible bayonet mount Canon has for that lens. </sarcasm>

Just get the Canon hood or a knockoff that looks like the Canon hood, mmmm'k?

Hi Neuro,

I had a highlight reading your advice carefully, so i am now little less stupid than before, but serious, its one of the better sarcastic posts i read here

But i have a copletely different problem, which is killing me. I urgently need to buy some lenses, but need advice which one would be best for my needs. I mostly shoot lenscaps and brickwalls, so i need the sharpest lens with best colour and contast and ultra fast AF. My problem i already have all L lenses, and the normal ones are not cool speaking about? so what else can i by to improve the artistic value of my photoraphy?

I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.

I'm aware of the 70-300 IS as well and have read good things about it. I didn't mention it because I thought I was throwing too many lenses out there.

I guess I wonder if the 70-300 IS would be enough of an upgrade over the 75-300 IS to make it worthwhile as opposed to living with it until I can get the L with IS. Would it be a better choice than the 70-200 w/o IS? I suppose it depends where and how you are going to use it. Better optics and faster focusing vs IS.

Too often I find myself needing more light. I'm finding it better to push the ISO since I prefer noise to blur, but noise is not so great either. The real answer would be the 70-200 F2.8 IS and even better with FF, but that's more down the road.

Like I said, I'll likely get the 85 1.8 first since it will offer good range and fast optics that will fill alot of my needs and function as good portrait lens as well.

I'm constantly learning how to pull more and more from my equipment as my skills grow, so it's all good. Even the best equipment has it's limitations. The challenge is how to make the most of it and have fun doing it!

I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.

I'm aware of the 70-300 IS as well and have read good things about it. I didn't mention it because I thought I was throwing too many lenses out there.

I guess I wonder if the 70-300 IS would be enough of an upgrade over the 75-300 IS to make it worthwhile as opposed to living with it until I can get the L with IS. Would it be a better choice than the 70-200 w/o IS? I suppose it depends where and how you are going to use it. Better optics and faster focusing vs IS.

Too often I find myself needing more light. I'm finding it better to push the ISO since I prefer noise to blur, but noise is not so great either. The real answer would be the 70-200 F2.8 IS and even better with FF, but that's more down the road.

Like I said, I'll likely get the 85 1.8 first since it will offer good range and fast optics that will fill alot of my needs and function as good portrait lens as well.

I'm constantly learning how to pull more and more from my equipment as my skills grow, so it's all good. Even the best equipment has it's limitations. The challenge is how to make the most of it and have fun doing it!

I've never used the 75-300 personally. I have the 70-300IS on my "car camera" and it is a very good tele in "good light". Any of the Canon 70-200Ls will be noticeably better in every aspect. Whether or not you need the IS will depend on what you're shooting. I was mostly pointing out that switching from the 75-300 to the 55-250 would probably not be productive.

I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.

I'm aware of the 70-300 IS as well and have read good things about it. I didn't mention it because I thought I was throwing too many lenses out there.

I guess I wonder if the 70-300 IS would be enough of an upgrade over the 75-300 IS to make it worthwhile as opposed to living with it until I can get the L with IS. Would it be a better choice than the 70-200 w/o IS? I suppose it depends where and how you are going to use it. Better optics and faster focusing vs IS.

Too often I find myself needing more light. I'm finding it better to push the ISO since I prefer noise to blur, but noise is not so great either. The real answer would be the 70-200 F2.8 IS and even better with FF, but that's more down the road.

Like I said, I'll likely get the 85 1.8 first since it will offer good range and fast optics that will fill alot of my needs and function as good portrait lens as well.

I'm constantly learning how to pull more and more from my equipment as my skills grow, so it's all good. Even the best equipment has it's limitations. The challenge is how to make the most of it and have fun doing it!

I think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I tried out a friend's 55-250, and I was surprised how good the cheap plastic toy was! The 70-300 is at best comparable to the 55-250 in the overlapping focal range, has a similiarly slow AF (its not true ring USM, and the micro motor of the 55-250 is acceptably fast for a non-USM) and similar rotating front element. To me, the advantage of a metal mount and additional 50mm in the long end (which, by the way, is the weakest aspect of the lens) isn't worth the more than double price. My personal experience notwithstanding, this is what TDP has to say about the comparison:

Quote

The difference between the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is not as clear. The 55-250 has less play in the barrel than the 70-300, but the 70-300 is more solidly built including a metal lens mount. The 70-300 is larger and heavier. The 55-250 has a more-matte finish. While the focus ring on both lenses turns during AF, the 70-300's focus ring does not manually turn in AF mode. This makes lens hoods and filters easier to install/remove, but makes parking the lens in the most compact size more difficult (though you are not supposed to turn the focus ring on the 55-250 in AF mode either). While the 70-300 has USM AF, it is Micro USM - not Ring USM - and is not greatly different from the 55-250 in AF speed. The 70-300 is compatible with all EOS bodies including full frame film and digital models. To the 55-250's advantage is that it retracts to a smaller size, weighs less and costs noticeably less.

In the image quality department, these two lenses are more similar than in the 70-200 L comparison. Wide open, both lenses are similar in sharpness at the center of the frame, but the 70-300 is generally sharper in the corners - which is not surprising as it is a full-frame compatible lens. Stopping down 1 stop makes a bigger difference in sharpness on the 70-300 than it does on the 55-250 - and this gives the 70-300 a bigger edge at these apertures. The 55-250 delivers better image sharpness at 250mm than the 70-300 does at 300mm. The 70-300 shows less vignetting wide open on a 1.6x body. The 70-300 has less distortion over most of its focal length range.

I'd mention the Tamron 70-300 which is much better than the 70-300 non-L and cheaper, but I think the 55-250 is still a better value for money. And will have better resale value (I am still struggling to sell my mint Tamron with warranty, so go figure!)